Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:09:25.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Henry VIII's will: the protectorate provisions of 1546–7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. W. Ives
E. W. Ives
Affiliation:
University of Birminghan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dr Houlbrooke's overall acceptance of the genuineness of Henry VIII's will is welcomed but his hypothesis about the protectorate is qualified, (i) Paget's testimony is shown not to indicate that the ‘gifts clause’ was added to the will after 12 January 1547. (ii) Corrections to the paper which underlies Paget's statement suggest that the distribution of honours under the clause related to Henry's wish to establish the Seymour faction, not to support for the protectorate. (iii) Moves towards the latter were only implemented when Henry's death was imminent, (iv) There is a plausible case to suspect jobbery then and (v) at the stage of the second protectorate, (vi) It is argued that in interpreting Henry's will, we must see (a) faction as intrinsic to court politics and (b) Henry VIII's religious policy as inherently and-traditional.

Type
Debate
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 901 - 914
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Miller, H., ‘Henry VIII's unwritten will’, in Wealth and power in Tudor England, ed. Ives, E. W. et al. (London, 1978), pp. 87–105Google Scholar [hereafter: ‘Miller, Wealth and power’].

2 Ibid. pp. 88–91.

3 Acts of the privy council, 1547–30, p. 19 [hereafter: ‘APC].

4 Ives, E. W., ‘Henry VIII's will – a forensic conundrum’, in Historical Journal, XXXV (1992), 790Google Scholar [hereafter: ‘Ives, ‘Henry VIII's will’].

5 Miller, , Wealth and power, p. 89.Google Scholar

6 Ibid. pp. 104–5; MS, College of Arms, in Literary remains of King Edward the Sixth, ed. Nichols, J. G. (Roxburghe Club, 1857), 1, xcii–xcivGoogle Scholar, transcribed as Thursday ‘xviiith’, not 17th; Handbook of British Chronology, ed. Fryde, E. B. et al. (3rd edn, London, 1986)Google Scholar gives 16 Feb. the date of the patents and conciliar approval: Calendar of patent rolls, 1547–8, pp. 173–5 [hereafter: ‘CPR’]; APC, 1547–50, pp. 34–5. The anguished council discussion recorded after Paget's report over whether the promotions could be afforded purports to end with the approving of a warrant but it was equally post facto since it says ‘we took upon us the degrees of honor’ (Ibid. p. 19).

7 See below p. 906 n. 28.

8 On the basis of Paget's report, Smith, L. B., Henry VIII: the mask of royalty (London, 1971), p. 259Google Scholar postulates that Norfolk made the offer re the prince in a letter sent after his condemnation. The alleged text in Chapman, H., Two Tudor portraits (1960) pp. 132–3Google Scholar is a compilation.

9 Herbert of Cherbury, The life and reign of King Henry the Eighth (1870), pp. 740–3Google Scholar(Letters and papers of the reign of Henry VIII (1862–1932), XXI(2), 540, 696 [hereafter: ‘LP’]).

10 APC, 1547–50, p. 17.

11 Herbert of Cherbury dated Norfolk's offer 19 Jan. but LP, XXI(2), 540 gives 13 Dec, which is plausible. Since Norfolk claimed ignorance of the charges and maintained his innocence, the letter must antedate his interrogation (Ibid. XXI(2), 554) as well as the final confession. Norfolk's letter to the council (Herbert, , Life and reign of Henry VIII, p. 741)Google Scholar envisages a regimen of imprisonment and possibly dates from Edward's reign.

12 More probably the promotion process over-ran the will. The initial offers of endowment were (Paget says) decided only after Gates had returned from Kenninghall with the duke's papers, conjecturally 18–21 December: Miller, , Wealth and power, p. 91Google Scholar; APC, 1547–50, p. 16; LP, XXI(2), 548, 552; Record Comm., State papers Henry VIII (1830–52), 1, 888–90Google Scholar [hereafter: ‘St papers’].

13 Ives, , ‘Henry VIII's will’, pp. 791–2.Google Scholar

14 Ibid. p. 789.

15 Ibid. p. 781; LP, XXI(2), 634, pp. 321n, 322n.

16 London, P.R.O., SP 10/1 ff. 28–9.

17 Examination of the ms shows that the ink of the corrections is consistent throughout.

18 LP, XXI(2), 556; Record Comm., Valor ecclesiasticus (1810–1834), III, 460, 498.Google Scholar

19 The officers were changed by adding the name of Mr Goodrich. The baronies which were unchanged were for Christopher Danby, Richard Rich, John St Leger, Edmund Sheffield, William Willoughby kts. Only Rich (an assistant) carried much political weight: House of commons, 1509–55, ed. Bindoff, S. T. (London, 1982), II, 10Google Scholar; II, 192–5, 258–9, 630–1 [hereafter: ‘Commons, 1509–58’]; Cokayne, G. E., Complete peerage, ed. Gibbs, V. (London, 1910–1949), XII(I), 661–2Google Scholar [hereafter ‘G.E.C.’].

20 See below p. 906.

21 It is not clear why Arundel was deleted at this stage. His father and grandfather refused peerages: Commons, 1509–58, 1, 338. Paget said he was unable to speak to all the candidates, so he may have kept Arundel's name in the list expecting the honour to be accepted this time.

22 With his ancestor John Lord Beauchamp ‘de Somerset’. The immediately preceding holder had been Henry VIII's bastard son, the duke of Richmond.

23 19 Jan. 1550, but the date suggests that these promotions were more probably linked to support for Dudley against Wriothesley subsequent to the protector's arrest.

24 Wriothesley's lands were awarded 23 July: CPR, 1547–8, pp. 23–4; see also CPR, 1548–9, p. 131 and below p. 910 n.60.

25 Seymour and Rich (peerages); Southwell (office); Petre (annuity).

26 Tudor practice may have accepted that traditional precedence defeated the rule of ancienty by date of creation: G.E.C., 1, 472; Powell, J. E. & Wallis, K., The house of lords in the middle ages (London, 1968), pp. 546–7, 558–60Google Scholar. Both Leicester and Chichester were ancient titles; Coventry was new and Winchester had recently been held by aliens.

27 Thomas Seymour's name is annotated ‘Lord Seymour of…’. It is a sign of the rapid deterioration of relations between the brothers that the day before Thomas’ creation, Edward was created Seymour, Lord ‘so that the name of Seymour may not be forgotten’ (CPR, 1547–8, p. 174).Google Scholar

28 Paget's report claimed that these grants and those for John Gates and Thomas Cawarden (100 marks p.a. in land: had been added to the initial list (APC, 1547–50, p. 17).

29 On the assumption that this was added to the fair copy of the corrected state paper. See below p. 906.

30 Foxe, John, Acts and monuments (Church Historians, 1852–1868), V, 691–2Google Scholar. Foxe's source was Richard Morice, Cranmer's secretary, who was quoting Denny at first hand.

31 See below p. 909.

32 LP, XXI(2), 647(13, 16), 648(34), (50), (60), (61); 770(82); 771(3, 12); pp. 434, 436, 439.

33 Commons, 1509–58, 1, 634–8, III, 525–6; Miller, , Wealth and power, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

34 Paget's grant was added when the state paper was finalized.

35 Implementation had to wait on Norfolk's attainder. Hence although the state paper names Edward Seymour treasurer and earl marshal, Dudley great chamberlain (vice Seymour) and Thomas Seymour admiral (vice Dudley), Henry's will uses their still current legal designations (Miller, , Wealth and power, pp. 91–2).Google Scholar

36 Henry's financial caution is evident in the alternative proposals for his legacies (LP, XXI(2), 634(10)).

37 LP, XXI(2), 648(52), p. 439. Apart from Montagu, the only executor other than those around Seymour to receive a grant was Russell – the reversion of an advowson passed in November but sealed on 5 Dec. (Ibid. XXI(2), 475(87), 648(14)).

38 Commons, 1509–58, II, 14–16, 197–8, 231–3, 236–7, 366–8, 482–3, 582–4; III, 68–9, 92–6, 352–4, 513, 550–1, 583–5. The exceptions are Sir William Goring, Sir William Petre and perhaps Sir Thomas Paston (if not linked to Dudley: LP, XXI(I), 751, 761, 939). Four of those awarded offices also received legacies: Paston, Southwell (Surrey's accuser), Darcy and Hoby (linked to Edward Seymour and William Parr). One is also suspicious of the significant grants to another legatee, Edward Bellingham of the privy chamber (LP, XXI(2), 771(9), pp. 434, 441).

39 7 July 1549 (Miller, , Wealth and power, p. 87).Google Scholar

40 APC, 1547–50, pp. 17, 19.

41 Reported ill [Guildford] 19th, recovered by 23 Sept.; seriously ill Windsor mid./late Oct., returned London 10 Nov.; a 30 hour fever (? Dec. at Oatlands) (LP, XXI(2), 129, 139, 546–7, 606, 384, 605). After leaving Windsor 10 Nov. he visited Whitehall, Oatlands, Hanworth, Stanwell, Oatlands, Byfleet, Oatlands, Esher, Nonsuch and Wimbledon (Ibid. XXI(2), 768 and passim).

42 LP, XXI(2), 607. Foxe states that Henry fell ill after returning to London (Foxe, V, 691).

43 After the ambassadors had seen Henry, Paget admitted he was not well, but for further evidence that Henry remained capable of business until 3/4 days before death see Houlbrooke, ‘Henry VIII's wills’, above p. 895 n. 13. For Henry's condition see his apothecary's bill (LP, XXI(2), 713, 768).

44 Tunstal did not, which suggests that only those involved in the discussions about the will knew the names, i.e. Browne, Denny, Dudley, Herbert, Paget, Russell and Edward Seymour (Ives, , ‘Will of Henry VIII’, pp. 789, 793).Google Scholar

45 APC, 1547–50, p. 6.

46 Ibid. pp. 67–74.

47 Tytler, P. F., England under the reigns of Edward VI and Mary (London, 1839), 1, 169Google Scholar [hereafter: Tytler, Edward VI and Mary]. Note Browne's earlier support for Gardiner; when the factional tide began to run it was best to go with it.

48 The privy council register presents the decision on titles as Edward's choice in order to implement Henry's will (APC, 1547–50, pp. 34–5).

49 Miller, , Wealth and power, pp. 96–7, 101–2.Google Scholar

50 Miller, H., Henry VIII and the English nobility (Oxford, 1986), p. 33Google Scholar. Evidently estrangement was no bar to the title, but a prospect of remarriage was.

51 CPR, 1547–8, pp. 137, 168–70, 261; G.E.C., IX, 669.

52 Cal. state papers Spanish, 1547–9, p. 48 [hereafter: ‘CSPS’].

53 See above p. 902.

54 APC, 1547–9, p. 20.

55 Ibid. p. 6.

56 Cf. Thomas Seymour being further conciliated by a seat on the council (Hoak, D., The King's council in the reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 231–4).Google Scholar

57 Miller, , Wealth and Power, pp. 97–104; CPR, 1547–8, p. 177.Google Scholar

58 Ibid, passim.

59 Neither St Leger nor Danby was promoted.

60 The granting of Wriothesley's licence in August implies that it honours a promise made before his disgrace in March (Ibid. p. 189).

61 Ibid, passim.

62 Tytler, , Edward VI and Mary, 1, 17.Google Scholar

63 APC, 1547–50, p. 6.

64 Slavin, A. J., ‘The fall of Lord Chancellor Wriothesley’, in Albion, VIII (1975), 265–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: the young king (London, 1968), pp. 70 n. 4, 71 n. 1.Google Scholar

65 The council numbered 17 (the original 16 plus Thomas Seymour) but both Woottons were abroad and Bromley was absent. The above counts Somerset, his brother, Paget, Denny, Dudley and Herbert. Support would probably also come from Cranmer and from North (APC, 1547–50, p. 18; LP, XXI(2), 771(1)), and perhaps Montagu and Browne (see above pp. 907, 909). The others were Paulet, Russell, Tunstal and Wriothesley.

66 I July an annuity added to an existing wardship (CPR, 1547–8, p. 12; LP, XXI(I), 963(12)); chancellor 23 Oct. (Paulet acted as keeper in the interval).

67 16 June, 1547 (C.S.P.S., 1547–9, p. 106). Van der Delft's previous comment (ex inf. Wriothesley) that ‘the protector did not obtain by the will the elevation in matter of titles that he desired and he ascribed this to the influence of the Lord Chancellor’ is congruent with the above if glossed as ‘Seymour did not get an independent protectorship as a result of the will’. If Van der Delft meant ‘obtain in the text of the will’, he was clearly in error.

68 Stowe, John, Annales (1615), pp. 601–2.Google Scholar

69 Ives, E. W., ‘The fall of Wolsey’, in Cardinal Wolsey: church state and art, ed. Gunn, S. J. and Lindley, P. G. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 302–3, 311–12Google Scholar; ‘Stress, faction and ideology in early-Tudor England’, in Historical Journal, XXXIV (1991), 196–7Google Scholar. See also ‘Politics and the court’, in Henry VIII, ed. D. MacCulloch [forthcoming].

70 Henry said ‘he was a wilful man, not meet to be about his son’; ‘he would cumber you all and you should never rule him, he is of so troublesome a nature’ (Foxe, V, 691; VI, 163). Cf. Paget: ‘[he] hath certain affections in his head many times towards such men as he greatly favoureth not…and when he seeth time can lay on load to nip a man; which fashion I like not and think it devilish’ (Gammon, S. R., Statesman and schemer: William Paget (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 113).Google Scholar

71 St papers, 1, 883–5 (Lp, XX(2), 487, 488).

72 Foxe, VI, 138–9. The reply was handled by Petre (LP, XXI(2), 493, 647(10)).

73 Redworth, G., In defence of the church catholic (Oxford, 1990), p. 241.Google Scholar

74 Foxe, V, 691. It is uncertain whether Henry excluded Gardiner from council (as Foxe implies) or from privy chamber. He saw Henry on possibly 24 Sept. when the king left Chobham for Windsor. He attended council at Windsor between 5 and 9 Oct. but then not until 1 Nov. With the court at Westminster he attended again 11/14 Nov., his last known meeting with Paget before his letter of 2 Dec. and his last council attendance until 16 Jan. (LP, XXI(2), 148, 200(42), 221, 244, 333. 387, 399).

75 Muller, J. A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor reaction (London, 1926), pp. 145–8.Google Scholar

76 Cranmer, Thomas, Works, ed. Cox, J. E. (Parker Soc. 1846), pp. 414–15Google Scholar; LP, XXI(2), 92, 109, 110; Ridley, J., Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962), p. 251.Google Scholar